Re: [802SEC] Document for EC Review (the one that was approved in principle at the July plenary)
Title: Message
Carl,
comments:
In the
sentence immediately below Table
3:
Link budget reduction vs. I/N ratio, "a 5% reduction range reduction" should
probably be "a 5% range reduction"
In
the second line of the second paragraph of section 3 "is is" should be
"is"
-Bob
Dear EC
colleagues,
Attached for
your review is the document that was approved (in principle) by the EC at
the July plenary.
NOTE: The
document DELIBERATELY has change marks, rather than being a "clean" document,
since it proposes revisions to an existing ITU-R document as described
below. That is the ITU-R convention - to show all changes with change
marks until they have been agreed - so the document will go to Geneva with the
change marks. (You can turn viewing of changes off to read a "clean copy"
if you prefer.)
This
document is entirely consistent with our previously approved contribution to the
ITU-R (last December's JRG 8A-9B meeting) in that it proposes exactly the
same protection criterion for "WAS/RLAN systems" (802.11a to us) as our original
contribution and simply adds some technical analysis intended to justify
proposed number.
What this document
does is propose changes in the ITU-R "Working document towards a Preliminary
Draft New Recommendation" that was created at the last meeting on this topic at
the ITU-R in Geneva as a result of our initial contribution. (I was the
drafting group chairman for the document that is being
updated.)
There were some
administrations that wanted specific values referenced to an Annex, which was
simply a "TBD" placeholder, pending the delivery of more in-depth supporting
analysis for a specific number (which we had proposed).
This revision simply
proposes to put in the specific number we suggested before and adds an Appendix
containing an analysis that shows how we arrived at it (the Appendix is
intended to provide the necessary information to allow administrations to
understand the rationale behind the number and justify it as
"reasonable.")
As such, I
don't anticipate anyone will object to the document, but I would appreciate
early notice if you do so I can address your issue, rather than waiting until
the end of the 5 day review period,as the document is due in Geneva
"real soon now." (I have, as Dr. Heile would say, "been wrapped around the
axle" time-wise since returning from Portland with a number of things relating
to the FCC TV band NPRM, getting an extension of the comment period on that, 5
GHz DFS certification test rules issues, etc.)
I will be sending
this document to Jim Carlo and Terry deCourcelle for IEEE-SA review in parallel
to the EC review due to the time constraints of the impending deadline to ship
this document to Geneva prior to the upcoming ITU-R WP8A
meeting.
Regards,
Carl R. Stevenson
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory
Group
Chair, IEEE 802.18 SG1 Study Group on Unlicensed Use of Unused TV
Spectrum
Interim Chair, (proposed) IEEE 802.22 Working Group on Wireless
Regional Area Networks
Member at Large, IEEE-USA CCIP
IEEE Liaison to
ITU-R
610-965-8799 (home office)
610-712-3217 (fax
mailbox)
610-570-6168 (cellphone)
Short Message Service:
6105706168@voicestream.net
carl.stevenson@ieee.org
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive
Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.